1. This application for revision has been pressed on the facts and on one legal ground.
2. On the facts the accused has had a careful ferial in two Courts and there is no reason to admit the revision. He is charged with forging an application for a privilege ticket in the name of Mohan Singh, whereas he really got on it the thumb-mark of Janki Prasad whom he wished to take with him to Jagannath. Janki Prasad was examined as an approver, and the learned Judge points out that there is considerable corroboration of his story including this very important fact; to which the Assistant Sessions Judge refers in his judgment, that when Janki Prasad was found travelling with this forged order and gave his name as Mohan Singh, Bhawani Prasad falsely verified his statement that he really was Mohan Singh. The legal point taken is that the pardon given to Janki Prasad under Section 337 was not valid because though at the time when it was given the accused was charged with an offence under Section 467, Indian Penal Code, which is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, he was ultimately convicted under Section 468. I doubt very much whether the validity of a pardon given under Section 337 to an accused person charged with an offence specified in that section would be affected by the fact that the co-accused against whom his evidence was afterwards recorded was ultimately convicted of a minor offence, but even if the pardon was invalid against Janki Prasad, it would not prevent Janki Prasad being examined in the Sessions Court as a witness seeing that he was not committed for trial along with the accused. The legal objection, therefore, wholly fails and I reject the application.